Get a single Hashnode post by slug

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the response includes content brief, views, tags, cover image, and author, and it mentions the response_format option. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error cases, so a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, separated into Args and Returns sections, and clearly front-loads the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args list slightly duplicates schema info. The format is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete: it states the purpose, lists required and optional parameters, and describes the return content. It does not mention authentication or error scenarios, but annotations cover safety and read-only behavior, so no major gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters (host, slug, response_format) with types and constraints. The description adds a concrete example for slug ('my-first-post') and restates the response_format options, but does not provide significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is fitting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches full details of a single published post by slug, with a specific verb (fetch) and resource (published post). This distinguishes it from siblings like hashnode_list_posts (which lists posts) and hashnode_get_publication (which gets publication info).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a specific post slug is known and full details are needed, contrasting with list_posts for summaries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear from the phrase 'single post by slug' and the listed return fields.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.